This
article previously appeared in Counterpunch. I returned
this month from Haiti as part of the first independent U.S. observer
delegation since the removal on February 29 of President Jean
Bertrand Aristide. More than a decade ago, I helped organize
the New England Observer Delegations to Haiti -- nine diverse
groups of prominent Boston area people who went to Haiti after
the first coup d'etat against President Aristide. We witnessed
a reign of terror by the Haitian military, in which at least
3,000 democracy activists were slaughtered. We also witnessed
the almost universal jubilation of the Haitian urban and rural
poor (85% of the population) on Aristide's return.
This
time I went to see the results of another coup against Aristide,
one clearly
planned, funded and orchestrated by the U.S. I felt a terrible
déjà vu: massive violence against the poor, especially against
Aristide's Lavalas movement; the very same paramilitary and former
Haitian army officers committing the atrocities. Convicted mass
murderers acting as judges, administrators and police. Despite
intimidation and brutal attacks on the poorest neighborhoods, we
saw overwhelming support for Aristide among the poor, and violent
hatred of Aristide by the tiny elite. A crucial difference was
the attitude of the professionals and many intellectuals. They
expressed a sense of betrayal by Aristide, and joy at his fall.
Yet one of them told me, "The Haitian people elected Aristide,
and only they should have been able to take him down."
We
heard from people who witnessed nighttime raids against Lavalas.
In one case in
the poor neighborhood of Bel Air, we were told U.S. helicopters
came with blinding lights, heavily armed U.S. troops fired into
crowds, killing between five and twenty persons (March 17). Members
of our group interviewed relatives of victims and eyewitnesses
to this attack. In case after case, we were told that known criminals
and former army men were incorporated into the police. They harassed
or beat Lavalas supporters and hounded for "arrest" former
government officials.
A stream of people came
to see us from their hiding places at great risk to tell us this.
Jeremy was one. Now 21, he met Aristide at age 11. He worked
for Children's Radio (Radio Ti Moun) funded by Aristide's foundation.
Jeremy tearfully recalled the past month: He fled the radio station
as it was trashed. He was chased and saw his young companions
beaten. He ran from his aunt's house as three former military
came looking for him. They shot his aunt and she died on the
way to the hospital. This happened a week before we arrived.
Jeremy had been afraid to go to her funeral.
A
woman came to us from the community group, Ai Bobo Brav, victims
of the last coup.
I'd met her last March when she told me, "Every Haitian
baby knows Bush's game." Back then she'd forecast the coup.
Now she was living it. "While your president was sleeping
in his bed, they kidnapped our president. They dragged him off.
It was so disrespectful. It hurt me so.” She wept.
Driving
back to Port-au-Prince from Jacmel on Friday, I saw a cow munching
on garbage by a sign
in English advertising a school. The sign said, "Welcome
to the American Learning Zone." The U.S. State Department
point man on Haiti, Roger Noriega (also involved in the Iran-Contra
plot in Nicaragua) told an audience in Washington last year that
Cuba and Venezuela should pay close attention to events in Haiti.
One of the first acts by U.S. marines after landing in Haiti
this year may have been to establish a perimeter around Mole
St. Nicolas, the peninsula opposite Guantanamo, jutting into
the narrow strait between Haiti and Cuba. Local residents reported
to Haitian news media that U.S. military structures were being
built on the site long sought by the U.S. as a companion base
to Guantanamo.
What
interests provoke such an expensive, brutal lesson in Haiti?
Haiti has no oil.
Of course there are thousands of sweat shop workers who toil
for less than a dollar a day. Of course there are big US companies
that supply rice, wheat and other staples supplanting Haitian
rice and cassava, so that nearly 70% of the food consumed by
Haitians must be imported, mostly from the U.S. This for a country
that once provided more wealth to France than all its other New
World colonies! And then there is Aristide, the little Liberation
Theology priest who preached a message of conflict between the
tiny elite and the desperately poor majority. Haiti is so close
to Cuba – that other obsession of U.S. foreign policy. One of
Aristide's first acts was to establish ties with Cuba. More than
500 Cuban doctors remain in Haiti, helping the poorest communities.
They must be remembering Grenada, where a U.S. occupation twenty
years ago ousted Cuban doctors. Most of all, Haiti sits in what
the U.S. sees as it's back yard, it's playground, it's lap. Upstart,
uncontrolled forces there are just too close to home. So – Venezuela
and Cuba and others beware: Haiti is the American (imperial)
learning zone.
A learning zone
for solidarity activists, too
Haiti
should be a learning zone for all Americans who would understand
and counter the imperial
U.S. policy of intervention worldwide. If the U.S. can get away
with covert and overt support for a "rebellion" in
Haiti led by former military and paramilitary, many of whom have
been convicted of murders and other human rights violations dating
to the last coup, it will be psyched for similar operations in
Venezuela and perhaps even in Cuba. The evidence is clear: U.S.
weapons (intended for the Dominican army) were smuggled into
Haiti by former Haitian military and paramilitary, many of whom
were trained and long funded by the CIA and other U.S. agents.
U.S. money, both government and private, flowed into the coffers
of NGOs attached to the "opposition" – the right-wing
Convergence and the neo-liberal "Group of 184," led
by the Haitian business elite (including the sweat shop owners)
and widely publicized by the ultra-conservative "Haiti Democracy
Project" (HDP)
in Washington, D.C. Among the funders and organizers of the opposition
were the IRI and NDI,
the international NGOs closely tied to the U.S. Republican and
Democrat Parties respectively. IRI and HDP operatives were present
at meetings organized by FRAPH (a CIA-funded paramilitary group)
and former Haitian military in the Dominican Republic – at which
Dominican authorities claimed plans were laid a year ago for
a Haitian coup.
In
Jacmel, we met students, women and union organizers who had
formed specifically anti-Aristide
groups to counter the existing organizations in Jacmel – for
the purpose of joining the demonstrations led by the Convergence
and 184 to demand the ouster of Aristide earlier this year. Pierre
J.G.C. Gestion, a leader of the MHDR (Haitian Movement for Rural
Development) proudly asserted his connection to USAID, the State
Department Democracy Enhancement program and the NDI. "They
trained us and taught us how to organize, and we organized the
groups you see here to demand the corrupt government of Aristide
be brought down."
We
also met representatives in Port-au-Prince of SOFA, CONAM,
ENFOFANM and other progressive
women's groups, as well as Batay Ouvriye, the rightly heralded
support group for the Free Trade Zone and other mostly women
workers in the assembly industries (sweat shops). These women's
and labor groups were strongly critical of Aristide's government
and the Lavalas movement. During the past few months, they openly
called for Aristide's removal, and they chose not to denounce
the opposition's "zero option" strategy of non-cooperation
and non-compromise. Yet I heard no answer to our question: "What
did you think would happen if Aristide was forced to leave by
the right-wing rebels or by a U.S. occupation?" I believe
these groups did not ask themselves that question.
I
think they were blinded by their feeling that Aristide had
betrayed his progressive mandate.
A good bit of their analysis of Aristide's record was right – though
not all. Aristide did accept a compromise when he returned. He
did include, at U.S. insistence, elements of the former army
and even Duvalierists in his regime. Yet the government put in
place by this recent coup is far worse: it is full of such Macoutes,
and worse – convicted mass murderers. It has already militarized
the police and is preparing the return of an unreconstructed
Haitian army – the instrument of U.S. and elite oppression in
Haiti since it's creation by the U.S. at it's first invasion
in 1915.
Aristide
also compromised terribly on the issues of structural adjustment – he
did put in place the first Free Trade Zone, and lay plans for
a second
one, a bitter insult to Haitian labor. He did begin privatization.
He did not protect Haitian products adequately. Yet he did not
compromise on everything. He continued to agitate for a better
minimum wage, against the sweat shop owners. He resisted most
of the demanded privatization. He held out for collective bargaining
rights for the Free Trade Zone workers. He continued to make
small steps toward agrarian reform. As Paul
Farmer and others have shown, he made greater strides in
fighting AIDS and promoting literacy than any previous government.
The Latortue government from the start has been wholly dominated
by free trade enthusiasts, neoliberal theoreticians and the worst
of the sweat shop owners and other business elite. The
women's groups told us bluntly that the situation under Aristide
was the worst in
Haiti's history – worse than Duvalier and worse that Haiti during
the 1991-1994 coup period. Yet I met these groups during that
time. They were in hiding then, terrified by the very same elements
now roaming Haiti freely, committing atrocities now as then.
When U.S. and other international delegations visited them a
year ago, under Aristide's rule, they functioned openly. They
did not appear terrorized. Their most concrete criticisms were
that when they demonstrated against the government – during the
same period as the sometimes violent demonstrations orchestrated
by the 184 and the Convergence, and coming during a time when
it was clear that former military and paramilitary (the CIA-funded
FRAPH) were entering the country and preparing a coup – police
stood by as people they called Lavalas threw bottles of urine
and stones at them. All of that is terrible – and should not
have gone without a severe criticism of Aristide and Lavalas.
But it cannot be compared to the brutal onslaught by the Fraph
and former army officers in Gonaives, Cap Haitien and elsewhere
after Feb. 5. Aristide's alleged abuses pale beside the documented
reports of the "rebels" slaughtering police and Lavalas
and mutilating their bodies; of summary executions; of groups
of Lavalas herded into containers and dumped into the sea.
Perhaps worst of all,
I listened again (as I had a year ago) to the litany of abuses
the NCHR (National
Coalition for Haitian Rights) says it documented against officials
of the Aristide government and the Lavalas movement. They rightly
protested cases like that of the journalist Jean Dominique and
a dozen other high profile attacks on opposition activists and
as many as three opposition journalists. Yet during the two years
leading up to this latest coup, they adamantly refused to investigate
now-verified allegations of murders, arson and bombings against
the government and Lavalas by former military and FRAPH. They
scoffed at the alleged coup attempt at the National Palace in
December of 2001, though Jodel Chamblain now boasts that was
an initial coup attempt.
Although
they were the only human rights group in the country adequately
funded and
having trained monitors throughout Haiti, the NCHR became completely
partisan: anti-Lavalas, anti-Aristide. This is simply not proper
for a group calling itself a "Haitian Rights" organization.
During the final month before the coup, they abandoned any pretext
of impartiality, joining calls for the ouster of Aristide, without
reference to the means. After Feb. 29, they continue to site
abuses by "chimere," whom they call simply "Aristide
gangs," without documenting the connections. Though they
told our group they had "heard about" violence against
unarmed Lavalas, including the possible complicity of U.S. marines
in the Bel Air incident, the NCHR said they "lacked access" to
the pro-Lavalas shanty towns. Of course they lacked access: they
lacked any shred of credibility as a human rights monitor.
We
also heard from PAPDA (Platform to Advocate for Alternative
Development) which had
called for Aristide's ouster on the grounds of his compromises
with "U.S. imperialism," as well as corruption and
human rights violations. PAPDA had functioned openly in its offices
under Aristide, right up to and through this year's coup, though
at least one PAPDA member was killed, allegedly by "chimere." Camille
Chalmers, PAPDA's director, said, "This is a sad day for
Haiti. But it was the people who overturned Aristide. The U.S.
only came in to shape the results, as they always do.… Right
now, the population has regained some hope. This hope will go
against the marines. Confrontations are already happening."
Though
the current government is extremely pro-neo-liberal, a PAPDA
coalition leader on environmental
issues, Yves Wainwright, has accepted the post of Minister of
the Environment. "The current political situation has not
been defined," Chalmers told us. "If the Provisional
Government were to develop a logical program it would conflict
with U.S. interests. Under Aristide, we had less and less space
to organize and demonstrate – we were repressed. As long as we
can demonstrate against the military occupation now, we will
retain a tiny space." Together, some 40 similar anti-Aristide "left" groups
have formed the RDP (Popular Democratic Regroupment) to put forward
an alternative opposition program to the government, even while
some work within that government.
One
man I hoped to see, but did not, was Chavannes Jean-Baptiste.
Chavannes was at times
very close to Aristide – serving as his spokesperson when he
returned after the coup. Chavannes is founder and leader of the
MPP (a large peasant group in the Central Plateau). Shortly after
Aristide chose Preval for his successor, Chavannes announced
his break with Aristide (there was indeed an ugly confrontation
between Chavannes and Lavalas activists in Mirebalais). By the
2000 election, Chavannes openly embraced his former worst enemies,
and joined the Convergence. Later Chavannes joined the more palatable,
but clearly neo-liberal, Group of 184. MPP has now endorsed its "Social
Contract," put forward by elite business groups.
A
peasant from Mirabalais in the Central Plateau told me he had
evidence that most of the
weapons and men moved from the Dominican Republic to start the
rebellions in Gonaives and Cap Haitien in early February, came
through Chavannes' turf. "No way could that have been done
without his active support." Chavannes is said to be considering
a position in the de facto government – as minister for peasant
affairs. I was with Chavannes and his mother when they wept on
seeing the ruins and vandalism at their offices in Papay on their
return after the first coup in 1994. That damage was done by
the very same paramilitary and military who now occupy much of
the country. Another dissident peasant whom I met told of Chavannes'
embracing and throwing a feast for Chamblain, the convicted murderer
and FRAPH member who "liberated" Hinche, the MPP base.
Chamblain now sits in Cap Haitien, acting as "judge" condemning
and punishing "criminals" and "traitors." Such
alliances may be – as the civil society leader told us – just
strange bedfellows in wartime, but on a personal level, they
are hard to understand.
International
human rights organizations, especially Human Rights Watch and
Journalists
Without Borders, and to a lesser extent Amnesty International,
have taken the NCHR reports uncritically and failed to develop
other impartial human rights contacts in Haiti. Progressive funders
like Grassroots International and NGOs in Canada, the US and
Europe also listened uncritically to their "partners" and
funded groups in Haiti like PAPDA, SOFA, Batay Ouvriye and MPP. The
primary lesson to be learned for funders and NGOS, and for
all solidarity activists,
is that solidarity must first of all be with the people of Haiti – by
the assertion of their will by voting, as Haitians did for Aristide
in 2000 (the OAS and international NGOs certified that at the
time). Beyond that, international funding and solidarity groups
(and here the criticism is equally valid for those who were wholly
supportive of Lavalas without critique) must not put on blinders
when they visit Haiti. They must listen critically to all sides.
They must watch for concrete evidence of the mass base of the
organizations they fund – and evidence that the rank and file
feel as the "leaders" do.
It
remains to be seen whether the U.S. empire will gain more from
its exercise in the
learning zone of Haiti, or the international solidarity movement.
Let us hope for the latter – since the next learning zones may
come sooner than we expect, especially if the Bush regime lives
through its debacle in Iraq and survives the November election.
Material for this
article was compiled partly from observations and interviews
in conjunction with the Emergency
Haiti Observation Mission, a group of 24 diverse people
from throughout the U.S. and Canada, coordinated by the Quixote
Center in Maryland. The ideas expressed in this article are
solely those of the author, Tom Reeves. |